CFC 26 Ltd v Brown Shipley & Co Ltd & Ors

CFC 26 Ltd v Brown Shipley & Co Ltd & Ors

The claims against the Banks and Concord are fatally flawed as the particulars of the alleged corrupt agreement are insufficient, unsupported by evidence, and inconsistent with the facts. The claims against the Council for negligence/negligent misstatement are struck out as no duty of care is owed in the circumstances. The claim for malicious prosecution is also struck out as the service of an enforcement notice does not amount to prosecution for the purposes of the tort, and there is no sufficient basis for alleging malice.

Parties
Claimant: CFC 26 Limited; Proposed Claimant: SHG-SH20 Limited; First Defendant: Brown Shipley & Co Limited; Second Defendant: KBL European Private Bankers Limited; Third Defendant: Concord W1 204 GPS Limited; Fourth Defendant: Concord 204 GPS Limited; Fifth Defendant: Westminster City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery Division) / Application for Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out
Outcome
Claim dismissed and struck out
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Res Judicata, Conspiracy, Negligence, Malicious Prosecution, Receivership, Planning Enforcement
Civil Procedure Property Law Banking Law Tort Law Summary Judgment Strike Out Res Judicata Conspiracy +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CFC 26 Limited

Claimant

SHG-SH20 Limited

Proposed Claimant

Brown Shipley & Co Limited

First Defendant

KBL European Private Bankers Limited

Second Defendant

Concord W1 204 GPS Limited

Third Defendant

Concord 204 GPS Limited

Fourth Defendant

Westminster City Council

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery Division) / Application for Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action against the Banks and Concord
  2. 2 Whether the claim is barred by res judicata or is an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the particulars of fraud and conspiracy are sufficiently pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The claims against the Banks and Concord are fatally flawed as the particulars of the alleged corrupt agreement are insufficient, unsupported by evidence, and inconsistent with the facts. The claims against the Council for negligence/negligent misstatement are struck out as no duty of care is owed in the circumstances. The claim for malicious prosecution is also struck out as the service of an enforcement notice does not amount to prosecution for the purposes of the tort, and there is no sufficient basis for alleging malice.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed and struck out

Orders

  • Claim against the Banks and Concord dismissed
  • Claim against the Council struck out